The central legal point established in the judgment is that the Maharashtra State Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Special Backward Category and Other Backward Classes) Act of 2001 does not apply to a Co-operative Society unless the Government holds share capital in the establishment.

JUDGMENT :

(Shailesh P. Brahme, J.) :

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard learned counsel for both the sides for final disposal of the matters.

2. These two matters were clubbed with PIL No. 72 of 2021 and Writ Petition No. 8204 of 2021. Other matters are segregated from these petitions. The petitioner is common and core issue which falls for adjudication is also common. Shorn of unnecessary details, we propose to decide core issue – “Whether the provisions of the Maharashtra State Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Special Backward Category and Other Backward Classes) Act of 2001 (here in after referred to as ‘Reservation Act’ for the sake of convenience and brevity) are applicable to the petitioner – Co-operative Society ?”

3. In Writ Petition No. 11198 of 2010, the petitioner is challenging judgment and order dated 08.11.2010 passed by respondent no. 1 – Minister, holding that Reservation Act applies to the petitioner and directing the Sub-ordinate Officers to take steps to fill up the backlog of reservations. In Writ Petition No. 11431 of 2018 letter dated 12.06.2018 addressed by respondent no. 3 – Divisional Deputy Registrar to the petitioner instructing to fill up the backlog in view of application of Reservation Act to the petitioner, is under challenge. The declaration that Reservation Act is not applicable to the petitioner Co-operative Society and ancillary reliefs are also sought.

4. The petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act of 1960. The petitioner suffered losses due to mismanagement. From 15.09.1995 National Dairy Development Board was appointed as an administrator over the petitioner for a period of ten years. The period was further extended up to 2015. In 2015, the administrator was removed and newly elected committee for the period 2015-2020 was restored the administration.

5. The respondent no. 5 is an Association of Employees of the petitioner which was persuading for application of the reservation policy to the petitioner at various levels. During tenure of administrator, the representations were made to follow the reservation policy in the matter of recruitment. Writ Petition No. 5428 of 2006 was filed by the respondent no. 5 for the directions against administrator to implement a reservation policy. It was disposed of with directions to consider the representations. The respondent no. 5 also made representation to the respondent no. 2 – Divisional Commissioner which was not responded to favourably. Ultimately, the respondent no. 5 made a representation to the respondent no. 1 and the impugned order was passed on 08.11.2010.

6. After the order was passed by the respondent no. 1 on 08.11.2010, the respondent no. 3 – Divisional Deputy Registrar instructed the petitioner by letter dated 12.06.2018, for taking steps to fill up backlog by adverting to the policy of reservation. It is a common contention of the petitioner in both the petitions that the petitioner is not covered by definition of Section 2 (c) provided under Reservation Act. It is further submitted that there is no share holding by the State Government in the petitioner – Society. The petitioner is not controlled by the Government, therefore, the Reservation Act cannot be made applicable to the establishment of the petitioner.

7. The respondents have filed affidavits-in-reply to contest the contentions and the prayers of the petitions. The respondent no. 5 has filed a separate affidavit-in-reply opposing the claim of the petitioner.

8. It is contended that the petitioner was extended financial assistance of Rs. 6.25 Crores by Government Resolution dated 21.06.1996. The condition no. 9 was incorporated in the resolution mandating implementation of reservation policy in the recruitment to be undertaken by the petitioner. Thereafter, a reference is made to the correspondence amongst the res